What is Public Affairs? How can it be distinguished from Public Relations?

Even though the term Public Affairs has not been universally accepted by

practitioners or the activities which it encompasses fully agreed (Mcgrath, Moss and Harris 2011), it has however been described as the process by which any organisation monitors, anticipates and manages its relations with social and political forces, issues and groups that shape the organisations operations and environments. (Fleisher and Blair 1999). Perhaps more critically, it is defined in Mcgrath, Moss and Harris (2010, p.336) as being nothing more than a euphemism for lobbying; it may refer to the nexus of politics, management and communication whereby an organization seeks to deal with external public policy challenges; it can suggest a broader engagement with issue management across the range of corporate stakeholders; or it is (particularly in the US) simply the preferred way in which a body describes its public relations function (Armstrong 1982). Although essentially similar in function to public relations as they both seek the harmonisation of an organisation with its publics or stakeholders, distinctions between public affairs and public relations can be made across several categories between scholarship and practice ranging from significant differences in actual academic faculty locations, individual course content and recommended books, to professional associations and work positions with public affairs practitioners being more likely to form part of the dominant coalition of the organizations overall decision making structure than their public relations counterparts. (Fleisher and Blair 1999). According to Mcgrath, Moss and Harris (2011, pp.336-337). One suggested

point of distinction between both fields has been that, public affairs is the management of issues, whereas public relations is the management of the interface between the company and the outside world (Harris et al. 1999, p. 209). The Canadian lobbyist; Duncan Edmonds also surmised that: Public relations sold the corporation to society, whereas public affairs educated the

corporation about the outside world. Public affairs sensitized the corporation to what society wanted the corporation to do (Sawatsky 1987, p.70). What are the three most important rules of public affairs practice for any organisation engaging the EU system of decision making? Access to the EU decision making process is largely determined by intangible resources, notably knowledge, information and expertise. (Bouwen 2002, in Taminiau and Wilts 2006). Since knowledge and information are key, it can be argued that one rule of practice in building lobbying momentum at the European level, is to assemble an information network within EU institutions and other associations that can provide an indispensable alarm system and a means of accessing vital information (De Fouloy, cited in AFCO 2003). Such broader coalitions of stakeholders that represent different countries and preferably also different interest areas are necessary for effectiveness and the earlier this is used, the better for efficiency. (De Fouloy, cited in AFCO 2003) A second rule is having a credible and experienced public affairs professional head an in-situ public affairs desk in Brussels responsible for permanently monitoring potential EU challenges as opposed to what Venables ( ECAS 2007) described as a policy of flying in and out which does not work as efficiently as there is little advance warning of what is on the agenda for meetings of experts or parliamentary committees with items often shifted at the last minute. This point can be illustrated by citing the example of Facebook who recently appointed Erika Mann, a former German MEP to the European Parliament, as the head of the new Brussels office of the site. (PA News, Oct 2011) Doing this makes it easier to collect dossiers of information and transform them into useful intelligence and in cooperation with the staff and line on contents, downsize the long-list to a shared-list of dossiers that are manageable jointly through EuroFeds or ad hoc platforms with befriended stakeholders such as was mentioned in the second paragraph above (AFCO 2003). After all, case studies have shown that where organizations allocate the resources to make someone

responsible for lobbying at all stages of the decision-making process, the campaign is more likely to succeed. (ECAS 2007) Thirdly, and closely related to the other two rules mentioned, is the need for the lobbyist to get in early and stay the course. The earlier the lobbyist intervenes in the legislative process, the more effective he is (ECAS 2007). According to ECAS (2007), the advantage of getting in early is that at the start of the process very few people, departments, committees or outside interests are involved. However, as the issue progresses within the Institutions more people progressively become involved and there is more competition for attention. This is true, not only of the European Commission, but also of the other Institutions. It is important not only to get in early, but also to stay in otherwise it is assumed you have lost interest and your arguments may be forgotten.

Why is the European Union so dependent upon interest groups? Increasingly, it is becoming clear that complex policy issues cannot be solved by government alone. Delivering high-quality public services at the least cost and achieving shared public policy goals requires innovative approaches and greater involvement of citizens (OECD 2009). In the executive summary of the White paper on European Governance (2001), it is stated that the starting condition for more effective and relevant policies must be that democratic institutions and the representatives of the people, at both national and European levels, can and must try to connect Europe with its citizens. According to Schmidt (2006), when the European Union Commission called for more transparency and openness in EU policy-making in 2000, with greater participation in EU governance by civil society, it was seeking to address the selfsame democratic deficit in EU-level policy-making processes. The EUs dependence on interest groups touches largely on participation one of the five principles that underpin good governance, the others being; openness, accountability, effectiveness and coherence. (COM 2001). It is a chance to get citizens more actively involved in achieving the Unions objectives and to offer them a structured channel for feedback, criticism and protest (COM 2001 p. 15). Such consultation helps the Commission and the other Institutions to arbitrate between competing claims and priorities and assists in developing a longer term policy perspective. Participation is not about institutionalizing protest. It is about more effective policy shaping based on early consultation and past experience (COM 2001 p. 15). Finally, according to the Transparency Register website (2011); European institutions interaction with citizens associations, NGOs, business, trade and

professional organizations, trade unions, think tanks, etc. is constant, legitimate and necessary for the quality of democracy, for their capacity to deliver adequate policies, matching needs and reality. What special issues arise for the company public affairs manager when legislative authority rests with cross-border regimes? The public affairs function serves to assist the firm in formulating, advocating, and projecting strategies to influence government policies and broader societal perspectives. (Boddewyn 2007) Cross-border, international, and multinational activities can range from economic interactions between just two countries to a regional or global scope (Windsor 2007). Regimes are persistent and connected sets of rules and practices that prescribe behavioral roles, constrain activity, and shape expectations. (Keohane cited in Levy and Prakash 2003 p.133). One of the nonmarket conditions confronting a firm is the present, predicted future, and preferred state of relevant public and quasi-public policies. The firm determines what resources to allocate to public affairs and other politically relevant activities to influence those policies. The decision criterion in its simplest form is that expected benefits to the firm should exceed the expected costs for a selected course of action (Windsor 2007). From the works of Doh (1999), Levy and Prakash (2003), Windsor (2007), Boddewyn (2007) and even Schengelen (2011), it is evident that some of the key issues facing public affairs managers of multi-national enterprises today include on one hand, how to develop and get buy in for an overall strategy that ties in both the market and non-market goals of the firm, especially diversified firms (Shaffer and Hillman 2000) with various subdivisions providing goods and services at different points on the sustainability spectrum, and on the other, how to mobilize the needed resources and determine in what proportion they should be applied to address in significant measure, what is simultaneously crossborder, multilevel, and multiple-arena demand in order that the interests of the firm may be protected and ultimately furthered.

Furthermore, firm size; business interests; and other such things as region; type of government system; regime type; national and supranational laws; languages; national or regional cultures; the media; and of course, the vibrancy of citizen and interest group participation in policymaking all present special challenges for the company public affairs manager in the discharge of his professional duties and different types of enterprises or business strategies, of varying scope and scale, may well address the global, regional, or cross-border need for engagement differently (Windsor 2007). For example, take the proposed merger of Price Waterhouse/Cooper and Lybrand back in 1999. It required regulatory clearance and had to be approved by supra-national and national competition authorities as well as by financial services regulators and professional regulators in every major jurisdiction. Over 40 per cent of the firm's global revenue would be generated in Europe where it employed over 50,000 staff representing 40 percent of its global workforce and this figure was set to rise as it planned investments in the emerging markets of Eastern and Central Europe. For these reasons, a very important component of obtaining regulatory approval for the firms' merger was the need to satisfy the Commission that the proposed merger was compatible with EU competition policy (Hatcher 1999), and this is an allusion to the kinds of special issues that confront the company public affairs manager when contending with cross border regimes. Page

References
AFCO 104, 2003. Lobbying in the European Union: Current rules and Practices. Brussels: European Parliament. BODDEWYN, J., 2007. The internationalization of the public-affairs function in U.S. multinational enterprises: organization and management. Business and Society, 46 (2), pp. 136-173. COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, 2001. European governance: A white paper. Brussels: European Commission. DOH, J., 1999. Regional market integration and decentralization in Europe and North America: Implications for business-government relations and corporate public affairs. Business Society, 38 (4), pp. 474-507. ECAS, 2007. Tips for the would-be European Lobbyist. ECAS Publications. EUROPA. Why a transparency register? [Online] Brussels: European Parliament. Available from: http://europa.eu/transparency-register/about register/transparency-register/index_en.htm [Accessed 7th November, 2011] FLEISCHER, C., and BLAIR, N., 1999. Tracing the parallel evolution of public

affairs and public relations: An examination of practice, scholarship and teaching. Journal of Communication Management, 3 (3), pp. 276-292. HATCHER, M., 1999. The presentation of a merger case to the European Commission for approval: The case of price waterhouse/coopers & lybrand. Journal of Communication Management, 3 (3), pp. 260-275.

LEVY, D. and PRAKASH, A., 2003. Bargains old and new: Multinational corporations in global governance. Business and Politics, 5 (2), pp. 131-150. McGRATH, C., MOSS D., and HARRIS P., 2011. The evolving discipline of public affairs. Journal of Public Affairs, 10, pp. 335352. OECD, 2009. Focus on Citizens; Public engagement for better policy and services. OECD Publishing. PUBLIC AFFAIRS NEWS, 2011. Facebook names ex-MEP as first Brussels boss. November, p.1. SCHAFFER, B. and HILLMAN, J.A., 2000. The development of businessgovernment strategies by diversified firms. Strategic Management Journal, 21, pp. 175190 SCHENDELEN, R. 2011. New trends of public affairs management at the EU level. Journal of Public Affairs. 10, pp. 380-387. SCHMIDT, V.A., 2006. Procedural democracy in the EU: the Europeanization of national and sectoral policy-making processes. Journal of European Public Policy, 13 (5), pp. 670691. TAMINIAU, Y. and WILTS, A., 2006. Corporate lobbying in Europe, managing knowledge and information strategies. Journal of Public Affairs, 6, pp. 122-130. WINDSOR, D., 2007. Toward a global theory of cross-border and multilevel corporate political activity. Business & Society, 46 (2), pp. 253-278.